In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

Sound advice. One additional point might be "use this list to assess your own behavior, and not the behavior of others."

Perhaps this is a good place to leave this image, as well. It's helpful to recognize when one is no longer having an actual discussion - it happens in person as well as on the internet, and is quite common.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

PEOPLE WORTH TALKING TO (& NOT)§ 117. “Let an observant person come, one neither fraudulent nor deceitful, one of straightforward nature. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time rightly knows, rightly sees, ‘So this, it appears, is liberation from the bond, i.e., the bond of ignorance.’” — MN 80

§ 118. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn’t give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn’t cross-question a question deserving cross-questioning, doesn’t put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, cross-questions a question deserving cross-questioning, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn’t stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn’t stand by teachings known to be true,1 doesn’t stand by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit totalk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down [the questioner], doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn’t lend ear doesn’t draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.2 Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.Those who discuss when angered, dogmatic, arrogant, following what’s not the noble ones’ way,seeking to expose each other’s faults, delight in each other’s misspoken word,slip, stumble, defeat.Noble ones don’t speak in that way.If wise people, knowing the right time, want to speak,then, words connected with justice, following the ways of the noble ones: That’s what the enlightened ones speak, without anger or arrogance,with a mind not boiling over, without vehemence, without spite.Without envy, they speak from right knowledge. They would delight in what’s well-said and not disparage what’s not. They don’t study to find fault, don’t grasp at little mistakes, don’t put down, don’t crush, don’t speak random words.For the purpose of knowledge, for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,counsel that’s true: That’s how noble ones give counsel, That’s the noble ones’ counsel. Knowing this, the wise should give counsel without arrogance. — AN 3:68NOTES1. Reading aññ›tav›da with the Burmese edition. An alternate translation would be, “the teachings of those who know.”2. According to the Commentary, these qualities are, respectively, the noble truth of the path, the noble truth of stress, the noble truth of the origination of stress, and the noble truth of the cessation of stress.

That is an excellent off topic point. People who write articles on the internet love lists and always have something like "5,000 simple things to help with ____". People can only keep so many tips active in their minds at once and not all tips are as valuable as others. Much better would be "a short list of things for ______ that I tried, that produce the most results"

In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.

I fall into some of these traps on occasion: #2, #3, #4 #6, #12 and #16 all come to mind.

One that I find particularly grating is #9 and its variants -- i.e. someone posts a snarky, combative or dismissive comment and then adds a chirpy "Metta' or under it, just to twist the knife another turn... Unfortunately I have probably done this too..

daverupa wrote:Sound advice. One additional point might be "use this list to assess your own behavior, and not the behavior of others."

Abso-diddly-lutely!

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

If you kiss on them on the mouth while talking you'll likely get a vocal infection, so some restraint is required, but there is something to be said for being in the presence of real live human beings.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

#18 Disconnect from the Internet and drive to the nearest Dhamma/ Dharma center for some lovely discussion over tea.

Half a dozen cats MM, that's all I am asking and will willingly disconnect and drive over... humans? In the words of the Baroness.. No No NO

Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction. What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One. If this single thing is recollected and made much, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: PañhamavaggaBuddhanussatiSCVSMVMMBS

...but there is something to be said for being in the presence of real live human beings.

Bad breath and insect repellent perfume?

Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction. What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One. If this single thing is recollected and made much, it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: PañhamavaggaBuddhanussatiSCVSMVMMBS